Home  Opinion Lebanese leaders have no choice but compromise to avert disaster |
|
Lebanese leaders have no choice but compromise to avert disaster |
|
|
Written by Daily Star
|
Everyone in Lebanon is aware of the variety of doomsday scenarios that could unfold if the nation's lawmakers fail to elect a new president before Emile Lahoud's mandate expires on Friday at midnight. The country could be plunged even deeper into economic crisis, it could be paralyzed by new waves of protest and civil unrest, or even worse, Lebanon could see the return of Somalia-style gangland violence.
The United Nations Secretary General is but one of many individuals who has warned local leaders that their country is on the "brink of an abyss." But even though nightmare scenarios are widely acknowledged to be within the realm of possibility, and even though only a little more than 72 hours remain before the crucial deadline arrives, Lebanese politicians appear no closer to being ready to perform their most sacred constitutional duty.
In fact, a French initiative to bring about the election of a consensus president seems to have been all but derailed. An angry French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner expressed his frustration on Monday with the fact that his country's initiative is now "stuck" and demanded to know "who has an interest in making it even more complicated for the life of all the Lebanese." Kouchner's concern for the welfare of Lebanese citizens echoes that of the country's maronite patriarch, as well as a host of international and Arab mediators who have tried in vain to negotiate an end to Lebanon's most dangerous political crisis since the Civil War. But local politicians are still lagging behind international actors in terms of seeking solutions to the deadlock and easing the burden that is being borne daily by ordinary Lebanese. The principle players in the crisis seem not to recognize the urgency of the situation - and some have even tried to deny the potential consequences of their failure to reach accord.
It certainly does not help that the crisis is being exacerbated by foreign powers who are entering the fray to come to the "defense" of Lebanon. Recent reports suggest that Lebanon's fate is still inextricably linked to the power struggle between Iran and the United States over the Islamic Republic's nuclear energy program. Some have even accused President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of issuing veiled threats about the potential fate of Lebanon in a recent letter to French President Nicholas Sarkozy. Others have accused the Americans of arm-twisting their Lebanese allies into maintaining an uncompromising stance. But only Lebanese blood - not American or Iranian - stands to be shed if the current presidential crisis devolves into a civil war.
Given all of the obvious inherent dangers, rival Lebanese parties have no choice but to accept compromise. Yes, forcing a slim-majority vote would ensure that one political camp or another emerges as a "winner" in the current tug of war, but such a victory is likely to be extremely short lived. We have already seen what happens when a president who lacks popular support is imposed on the Lebanese: at best, he will become a figurehead whose lack of legitimacy serves to further undermine the office of the presidency. At worst, he will remain in office only long enough to preside over yet another chapter in Lebanon's destruction.
By The Daily Star
|
|
|
Madness takes over Lebanon.
Militants are fighting in the streets of Beirut. Military guns are on both sides. What is the prospect of such a situation. Aren't the Lebanese fed-up with wars?
23 November 2007
Lebanese President Emile Lahoud left the Baabda presidential palace without handing over the power to a new president. This is the first time since independence in 1943. |
advertisements
|
